Ezra D. v. Bisignano

Background

Ezra D. applied for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) on March 21, 2022, alleging disability beginning August 3, 2021 — his alleged onset date. His claimed disabling conditions included profound bilateral hearing loss, migraines, neck and shoulder pain, trouble swallowing, sleep apnea, asthma and allergies, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, inflammatory bowel disease, diverticulosis, and arthritis in multiple joints. His date last insured — the last date on which he was eligible to receive DIB — was December 31, 2021, creating a very short relevant period.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) denied his claim initially on August 22, 2022, and on reconsideration on October 11, 2022. Ezra D. requested a hearing, which an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducted via video on November 7, 2023. On February 6, 2024, the ALJ issued a decision finding Ezra D. was not disabled during the relevant period and therefore not entitled to DIB. The Social Security Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ's decision, making it the Commissioner's final decision. Ezra D. then filed this action seeking federal district court review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

The ALJ's Five-Step Analysis

The ALJ applied the standard five-step sequential evaluation process used to adjudicate Social Security disability claims:

- Step 1: The ALJ found Ezra D. did not engage in substantial gainful activity during the relevant period, notwithstanding some psychological testing records referencing employment. - Step 2: The ALJ identified the following severe impairments: bilateral hip bursitis, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar and thoracic spines, hearing loss, degenerative joint disease of the hips, knees, and left shoulder, asthma-pulmonary nodules, granulomatous disease, obesity, and cervical dystonia. The ALJ did not find COVID-19, heart palpitations, or chronic ear infections to be severe impairments. - Step 3: The ALJ found that none of Ezra D.'s impairments, individually or in combination, met or equaled any impairment in the Listing of Impairments — a set of conditions severe enough to automatically qualify a claimant for benefits. - RFC Assessment (between Steps 3 and 4): The ALJ assessed Ezra D.'s Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) — the most he can still do despite his limitations — finding he could perform light work with restrictions: standing and walking limited to four hours; only occasional stooping, crouching, crawling, kneeling, and climbing ramps/stairs; no climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; only occasional overhead reaching bilaterally; frequent reaching in other directions; frequent handling and fingering; no exposure to workplace hazards such as moving machinery or unprotected heights; only occasional exposure to extreme temperatures, humidity, or pulmonary irritants; and exposure only to moderate noise levels or quieter. - Step 4: The ALJ found Ezra D. could not perform his past relevant work because its exertional demands exceeded his RFC. - Step 5: Using testimony from a vocational expert (VE) — an expert on jobs in the national economy — along with Ezra D.'s RFC and vocational background, the ALJ found that jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that Ezra D. could perform, including order clerk (DOT 209.567-014), electronic inspector (DOT 726.684-110), and lab tester (DOT 539.485-010), all sedentary and unskilled positions.

Plaintiff's Arguments

Ezra D. advanced three main challenges:

1. Bilateral Hearing Loss. He argued the ALJ improperly minimized his hearing loss by emphasizing alleged inconsistencies in how he described his symptoms and by undervaluing the importance of his hearing aids. He claimed the step-three finding was not supported by substantial evidence and that the RFC's noise limitation did not accurately capture his hearing impairment, causing the VE's step-five analysis to be based on an incomplete hypothetical.

2. COVID-19 Effects. He argued the ALJ discounted the cardiac effects of COVID-19. He specifically pointed to the ALJ's description of his right atrial pressure as "elevated" rather than "significantly elevated" — the phrasing used by his care provider — as evidence that the ALJ understated his condition.

3. Alleged Factual Misstatements and HALLEX Violation. Ezra D. alleged the ALJ misrepresented the record in five specific ways: (a) stating he immediately consulted a disability attorney after stopping work when the record supports a gap; (b) referencing his lifting of a treadmill and refrigerator as evidence of functional capacity when that lifting allegedly occurred before the disability onset date; (c) characterizing his treadmill and bicycle use without noting that a physician encouraged such use; (d) citing home projects and chiropractic visits as evidence he could work, when he argued the chiropractic visits reflected his limitations; and (e) comparing testimony from 2020 to 2023 in a misleading way. He also argued these misrepresentations violated HALLEX I-2-8-25, an internal SSA procedural manual, constituting reversible error.

The Court's Analysis

Hearing Loss

The court found that the ALJ appropriately addressed Ezra D.'s hearing loss throughout the five-step analysis. The ALJ identified it as a severe impairment at step two, considered its functional effects on concentration and pace at step two, evaluated whether it met Listing 2.10 at step three, and accounted for it in the RFC by restricting Ezra D. to moderate-noise-or-quieter environments. The court noted that Ezra D. did not identify specific evidence showing that Listing 2.10 was actually met, that the RFC noise restriction was inaccurate, or that the representative jobs' noise environments would prevent him from working. The court characterized Ezra D.'s argument as an impermissible request to reweigh the evidence, which the court is barred from doing under Eighth Circuit precedent.

COVID-19 and Cardiac Symptoms

The court found the COVID-19 argument even less persuasive. While the ALJ used the word "elevated" rather than "significantly elevated" in describing Ezra D.'s right atrial pressure, the court found that this word choice did not necessarily establish that the ALJ discounted the cardiac issues. The court also noted that Ezra D. failed to connect this characterization to any specific error in the ALJ's finding that heart palpitations were not a severe impairment, the RFC, or the step-five occupational findings.

Alleged Misstatements and HALLEX

The court declined to find that a violation of HALLEX — an internal SSA manual — constitutes reversible error, citing prior decisions from the same district reaching the same conclusion. Because HALLEX alone is insufficient to mandate remand, the court declined to assess whether a violation actually occurred. The court further found that even if the ALJ erred — for example, in stating Ezra D. immediately retained an attorney after stopping work — Ezra D. failed to demonstrate that any such error affected the outcome of the ALJ's disability determination. The court characterized Ezra D.'s factual-misstatement arguments as largely conclusory and as raising issues the ALJ had already addressed.

Overall Conclusion on Substantial Evidence

The court applied the deferential substantial evidence standard — requiring only that a reasonable mind could find the evidence adequate to support the Commissioner's conclusion — and found it satisfied. The court emphasized that it may not reverse even if substantial evidence could support a different outcome or if the court would have decided the case differently.

Disposition

The court denied the relief requested in Ezra D.'s motion for summary judgment, granted the relief requested in the Commissioner's brief, and affirmed the Commissioner's final decision denying DIB.